An explanatory note

It has been brought to my attention that some people who have read this blog may have been offended by my lighthearted tone. I am very sorry that this is the case and would like to assure you that although I joke about, I am very seriously interested in the issues that have been raised. However, I am not reverent. Partly because it's not my style to be so and partly because a lightness of tone invites an engagement from potential contributors of different ages and inclinations in a different way than a serious traditionally academic research project might. And inviting a range of voices and interpretations is important to me and to this project.

I have been offline for a while and this is because I have been a bit crap, basically. But also because I was feeling certain doubts about the purpose of the project and the possibility of engaging in something like this without hurting people's feelings. The only real aim I had for the project (for to have to many aims is necessarily to inhibit its potential) was that it would draw on a multitude of experiences from a multitude of people. To some extent, and with the help of Saskia, the blog has achieved this and has generated lots of interest.

The response that I have posted to K B Neale's comment is based on a paper I gave in February at a conference called Life Histories, Women's Histories (I think), and should go some way to explaining the context from which I'm writing.

The issue of how middle aged women tend to write personal email responses to me rather than post on the blog (as middle aged men have)presents a problem but also an interesting insight into how history is constructed. I will give some thought to how best to proceed with some more focused research that addresses this differential.

As ever, I'd welcome your responses to this.

Thank you.

Anna